story in a recent edition of the New York Times confirms what many critics have said about plans to involve religious organizations in the operation of social services with taxpayer money -- violations of the First Amendment persist.

   What may surprise both supporters and skeptics, though, is the fact that many church groups are reluctant or simply unprepared to submit to what the Times described as "rigorous guidelines" in order to accept government money. Despite efforts to involve religious groups in publicly funded "faith-based partnerships" with federal, state and local governments, not all denominations are heading for the public trough. Even a leading supporter of schemes to forge an alliance between religious groups and government agencies, Stanley W. Carlson-Thies of the Center for Public Justice cautioned, "Politicians or anyone else who thinks that there were thousands of faith-based organizations raring to go, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't see that."

   While religious groups have long been the recipients of government money, there have always been guidelines on how such funding would be spent. Any church or other sectarian group accepting public subsidies in order to operate a social service like a medical clinic or soup kitchen had to make sure that the activity was secular and did not involve proselytizing. Religious symbols, icons and other materials could not be conspicuous, and the programs had to shun any overt and pervasive religious overtones. In addition, clients receiving social services could not compelled to participate in faith-based activities.

   All of that changed with the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The legislation, a bipartisan effort between Republicans and the Clinton White House, explicitly set the goal of involving sectarian groups in social service programs by making it easier for them to bid on government contracts without giving up their "religious character." Faith-based organizations could use religion as a litmus test in hiring employees, and those participating in such programs could be compelled to participate in religious activities.

   Critics admit that while "alternatives" had to be available for those not seeking a faith-based social program, oversight of churches and other religious groups operating these outreaches is minimal. There are serious constitutional issues involved which courts must still grapple with. A Texas case, for instance, could test the legality of a church-operated program which included Bible reading and other religious instruction as part of a job training program.

   In April, a survey by the Center for Public Justice indicated that over 100 different religious groups in nine states were involved in faith-based partnerships allowing them to use tax money in order to deliver a battery of social services. The actual number is likely higher, since federal money is disbursed through various state and even local agencies. Cities and states are also entering into their own "faith based partnerships," making it difficult to ascertain how much tax money is now flowing into the coffers of churches and other religious groups.

"I was kind of suspicious about how much involvement the government would have in the life of the church. Pleasingly, they have had very little, other than writing the check and forwarding the money."

   ¶    Indiana is fast becoming a bellwether in experiments to create such partnerships, and meld government money with sectarian agendas. With the encouragement of Gov. Frank O'Bannon, the state Family and Social Services Administration operates a "FaithWorks Indiana" outreach program aimed at recruiting religious groups for social service projects. A stated goal is "Assisting faith-based organizations in applying for state and federal grant dollars to support new or existing self-sufficiency programs," and "Establishing a statewide Faith Community Support Work Group that supports congregations and other faith-based groups in helping families succeed..."

   This included a recent workshop attracting nearly 1,000 participants which resulted in 75 groups applying for government funding. Forty-three groups received a total of $3,422,000. One organization is the Campbell Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church, headed by Rev. Natalie R. Wimberly. "I was kind of suspicious about how much involvement the government would have in the life of the church," she told the Times. "Pleasingly, they have had very little, other than writing the check and forwarding the money."

   The Times article asserts that "Texas is also the only state where a program financed under charitable choice has been accused of crossing the line into religious indoctrination..." It adds, though, that students attending an redmedial education class at Campbell Chapel pass posters exhorting them to "pledge to the Bible" and "pledge to the Christian flag." A teacher at the school admits that she had to restrain one student who had tried to convert his classmates to his form of Christian belief. A social worker gushed that because of $127,500 in public funding, "We were a church open two days a week and now we are open seven days a week, serving the public..."

   The porous boundary between operating a social outreach and outright evangelizing was also evident in quotes from the director of a program at Metro Church. "I'm not proselytizing, but yes, I'd like them (clients) to get hooked into a church, and I don't care whether it's Metro Church or another one. What's important is that the church, any church, is a safety net..."

   Still another example is the Faith Teaching Church of Deliverance, operated by Bishop Shedrick Madison and his wife Brenda, who received $24,100 in government money to operate a summer program for youngsters. The Times noted, "As they do every year, the Madisons last summer provided food, video games, boxing, basketball and Bible studies. They also took the children to a tent revival..."

   Supporters of government subsidies for religious groups like former Mayor of Indianapolis Steve Goldsmith say that controls on how public money may be used when churches accept taxpayer aid amount to "hostility" toward organized religion. Goldsmith, now a policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, lamented the lack of participation by religious groups in the social service sphere in an October 2, 2000 Indianapolis Star opinion piece.

   "During previous decades," Goldsmith wrote, "government, particularly at the federal and state levels, was not merely neutral to faith-based organizations. It was hostile..." The former mayor denounced the requirement of "detailed reporting systems, licensing and inspection efforts" for religious groups accepting public funds. Noting that both Mr. Bush and Vice President Al Gore have endorsed "partnerships" between church and state, Goldsmith adds that thanks to the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation, "cities and counties have been actively seeking out faith-based groups to help citizens move from welfare to work."

   Goldsmith also admits what many critics of "partnership" schemes have charged -- that the programs allow churches and other religious groups to survive despite declining interest and "empty pew" syndrome.

   "Many small religious organizations struggle to stay in existence. Their congregations are in the hundreds, not thousands. Yet their efforts to protect members and neighbors from negative influences, to help them move forward with confidence are enormous..."

   ¶    Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson continues the effort to involve religious groups in the affairs of the city. Hardly any area of his municipal program which once involved purely secular objectives like reducing crime, creating jobs or revitalizing neighborhoods does not now boast a proactive role for faith-based groups. In a discussion of domestic violence, for instance, Peterson said that he would "convene a community roundtable of law enforcement and justice officials, shelter and healthcare providers, educators, religious institutions and community organizations." He also called for a "partnership among criminal-justice officials, schools, community agencies, churches, business and industry" to prevent drug abuse in the city," and pledged to "work with local community leaders and faith-based groups" to provide after-school programs for youngsters.

   While many of the goals of welfare reformers may be laudable, it remains questionable whether religious groups are capable of operating effective social outreach programs on a mass scale. Most churches and other houses of worship do not operate "24 by 7" social outreaches, and religious groups continue to debate the wisdom of accepting government funding.

   Religious conservatives would like to see more money for faith-based programs, but fear the entanglement that likely comes with public funding. Critics says that there is not sufficient oversight to ensure that faith-based providers are presently abiding by rules which stipulate that tax money cannot be used for proselytizing; and they fear that as "faith-based partnerships" and other schemes proliferate, sectarian groups will be bolder in flaunting the constitutional separation of church and state.

   Another problem is how to assess the efficacy of faith-based social programs. Gov. Bush and other supporters point to claims of high rates of success when religion is part of a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program, or some other social service. Figures of such positive results, though, inevitably come from the provider and do not reflect any outside monitoring. One example is the religious program operated by the Malumba House in Washington, D.C. which receives sixty percent of its annual budget from a combination of government funds. The group's director, Hagos Weldegiorgis, told Christian Broadcasting Network, "Our success rate goes from 76 to 86 (percent) over the last four years..."

   "Most of the time when we are out there on the streets drinking and drinking, we lose faith in God," says Weldegiorgis. "Malumba House restores that faith back into you."

   Another supporter of partnerships and so-called "charitable choice," Marvin Olasky, told CBN that religious groups should seek government money, but with a caveat -- that the cash essentially come without too many stipulations and strings attached.

   Olasky is another Bush policy advisor who has shaped the GOP candidate's views on involving faith-based groups in the social services sector.

   "I don't think churches should rush into any type of embrace with the government that could very easily become a bear hug," Olasky warned. "If we're careful about this and think it through those risks could be dealt with in a way that would encourage churches to do this that would not make subject to government fiat. It's a very real danger, but one that can be controlled."

[text only]